My Lords, I simply do not accept that it is right that a requirement for financial disclosure should be imposed before the permission stage in a judicial review application. The time for considering such information is when the order for costs is considered, and not before. At the costs stage—the stage with which Clause 72 is concerned—it is clear which side has won, and the judge knows who is and who is not vulnerable to a costs order. Only at that stage is the issue of financial support relevant, and at that stage the present position is that the judge already has the power to make a costs order against a non-party who has financially supported an unmeritorious application. There is no utility in expanding or developing that power further. But if there is to be legislation, I urge the House to accept that it should be left to the discretion of the judge as to what order for costs he makes. There may be some sense, however, in legislating for the court at that stage to have the power to require financial information in order to help the judge form a conclusion. That is the limited purpose of my amendments to Clause 72. With your Lordships’ consent, I shall detain the House no further.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 27 October 2014.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
756 c984 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2015-05-22 05:01:33 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-10-27/14102728000008
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-10-27/14102728000008
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-10-27/14102728000008